EHSLibrary » open accesshttp://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles
Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library BlogMon, 30 Mar 2015 20:28:10 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1New open access journal, PeerJhttp://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles/2012/06/12/new-open-access-journal-peerj/
http://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles/2012/06/12/new-open-access-journal-peerj/#commentsTue, 12 Jun 2012 23:38:34 +0000http://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles/?p=2105“PeerJ is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal. Initially, it will be publishing Research Articles in the Biological and Medical Sciences. It will aim for rapid decision making and will publish articles as soon as they are ready… PeerJ operates a ‘Lifetime Membership’ model. Unlike many Open Access publications which charge authors per publication, PeerJ provides low-cost memberships to individuals, which gives them lifetime rights to publish with us (for free).” – from PeerJ

]]>http://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles/2012/06/12/new-open-access-journal-peerj/feed/0Home visitation, depression and health literacyhttp://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles/2012/05/02/home-visitation-depression-and-health-literacy/
http://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles/2012/05/02/home-visitation-depression-and-health-literacy/#commentsWed, 02 May 2012 15:08:45 +0000http://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles/?p=1907Parents’ health literacy level strongly affects their child or children’s health, and having a depressed parent only increases the risk of adverse health outcomes. The Center for Health Literacy Promotion teamed up with the Department of Health Services at the University of Washington to study whether depression impairs health literacy and impedes efforts to promote health literacy through home visitation.1

From 2006 – 2008, families in a six-site nationwide study participated in a program to enhance parenting skills. Participating parents were monitored for “depression, health- and healthcare-related practices, and surrounding family conditions at baseline and 6-month intervals for up to 36 months.” Data from this study, available in a publicly-funded AHRQ/NIH database, was recently analyzed, and while participants began with reduced health literacy skills, “after 1 year of enhanced home visitation, vulnerable parents were better able to manage personal and family health and healthcare, especially if depressed.” While the sample size (2,572 parent/child dyads) was modest, the findings demonstrate one way we can improve parental health literacy levels even among depressed parents.

In addition to demonstrating the benefits of home visitation in improving health literacy, this study provides support for those that argue for making publicly-funded research data available to all. While no less important back then, health literacy was not the burning topic in 2006-2008 as it is today. Principal investigators had no idea that their work could or would be used in this way. If this data was locked behind a publisher’s pay-wall, this study might never have happened. Because it was publicly available, it could be re-used to test new ideas and ways to help people today.

Researchers must have open access to as many data sources as possible in order to find new ways to help those in need. Access must take precedence over ownership and control when the health outcomes of vulnerable populations (in this case, children) is at stake.

What data sources should be made accessible that are not available right now? Or, what publicly available data/studies/etc. would you like to see analyzed in new and creative ways? Tell us about it!

]]>http://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles/2012/05/02/home-visitation-depression-and-health-literacy/feed/0Who can and should have access to research?http://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles/2012/04/30/who-can-and-should-have-access-to-research/
http://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles/2012/04/30/who-can-and-should-have-access-to-research/#commentsMon, 30 Apr 2012 23:13:32 +0000http://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles/?p=1902In a recent article in The Economist magazine, it makes the argument that “When research is funded by the taxpayer or by charities, the results should be available to all without charge.” The article goes on to point out the huge profits (and increases in profits) by publishers, and how scientists are making this possible by providing their research free-of-charge in exchange for publication.

This is not a call to break up or bring down big-name publishers. They provide services that libraries have come to depend on. But if research is funded by public funding — gathered through taxes or charitable contributions — then the public should have complete and prompt access to its results, good or bad.

Publishers counter with (among many claims):

Their work provides added value to the research, and

The current one-year embargo is not enough time to recoup the investment made in adding value.

“The cutting-edge research in psychology published by APA is rarely obsolete within a year and may have a shelf life of five to 10 years or more. Furthermore, only 16 percent of the eventual ‘lifetime’ usage of APA journal articles—in the form of downloads—occurs within the first year after publication.”

The best rebuttal to this argument actually came in the form of a comment on the article in the Chronicle of Higher Education: publishers “neither pay for the intellectual content they publish (authors get no payments including no royalties), nor do they pay for the intellectual effort of the peer-reviewers – all of that professional/academic expertise is given to them for free.”

In addition, is the “added value” anywhere close to the prices publishers charge for access to this information? Now there is an area ripe for research!

One argument for open access is seldom, if at all, being made, and for this author, it is the most compelling: lives may hang in the balance. Some people cannot wait one, five or ten years for the publication of research that will lead to life-saving medical advances. Loosely described, building up collected knowledge of research is like arranging a box of dominoes so they are all standing on end, and next to one another. Arrange them all in the right way, and a single tap will send them all cascading into one another, until all are knocked down. Researching and determining steps to treatments to take down conditions such as diabetes, various cancers, treatment-resistant diseases, and a myriad of other maladies should occur promptly, and benefit the many, not be delayed for the profit of a few.

]]>http://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles/2012/04/30/who-can-and-should-have-access-to-research/feed/0The Dark Side of Open Access Publishinghttp://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles/2011/04/28/the-dark-side-of-open-access-publishing/
http://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles/2011/04/28/the-dark-side-of-open-access-publishing/#commentsThu, 28 Apr 2011 22:13:48 +0000http://library.med.utah.edu/blog/eccles/?p=761A few weeks ago I received an invitation to create a book chapter proposal for a company called “InTech – Open Access Publisher.” Upon further investigation, I found that this company appeared to be based in Croatia, and in order to get my chapter published I would have to pay a fee of 475 Euros. Needless to say, alarm bells started ringing in my head, and I posted a question on the LITA-L listserv asking if anyone else had heard of this kind of arrangement. In response, Jeffrey Beal sent me a link to an article he wrote for the Charleston Advisor titled “‘Predatory’ Open-Access Scholarly Publishers,” a comparative review “of nine different Open-Access publishers that use the ‘author pays’ model for supporting their publishing efforts.”

Beal reviewed nine such publishers that utilize this “author pays” model of publishing, describing their work this way:

These publishers are predatory because their mission is not to promote, preserve, and make available scholarship; instead, their mission is to exploit the author-pays, Open-Access model for their own profit. They work by spamming scholarly e-mail lists, with calls for papers and invitations to serve on nominal editorial boards.

Beal goes on to claim that the content of these publications are not quality, peer-reviewed work, but are low-quality research that have been rejected by other publishers. Setting up a website for such content is quick, easy, and will result in an avalanche of journal articles in search results. “This abundance will make it harder for scholars to keep up with re- search in their fields, and it will cause online searches to be filled up with links to low-quality research.”

What do you think? Is Beal correct in his assessment that this will create an overabundance of poor-quality research? What should the scholarly side of OA publishing do to respond? Tell us!

Open Access Week, now in its second year at the University of Utah, is an opportunity for the campus and community to learn about the benefits of Open Access, to share what they’ve learned with colleagues, and to help inspire wider participation in helping make Open Access a new norm in scholarly and creative works. Open Access scholarship is digital, online and free of charge to readers and viewers. In many cases, it is free of most copyright and licensing restrictions, and can therefore be re-used in a variety of ways. It is a dissemination strategy that promotes rather than restricts access. Come share, watch, celebrate, and learn.

Events planned include John Wilbanks speaking on “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Open,” a film festival and more. Open Access week is a global event that, according to its blog:

is an opportunity for the academic and research community to continue to learn about the potential benefits of Open Access, to share what they’ve learned with colleagues, and to help inspire wider participation in helping to make Open Access a new norm in scholarship and research.